linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: bootrom: fix uninitialized variables

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200125121459.GA2792@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:44:59 +0530
From:   SAURAV GIREPUNJE <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     vireshk@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: bootrom: fix uninitialized variables

On 25/01/20 11:00 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 02:14:03PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> fix uninitialized variables issue found using static code analysis tool
>
>Which tool is that?
>
>> (error) Uninitialized variable: offset
>> (error) Uninitialized variable: size
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c
>> index a8efb86..9eabeb3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c
>> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static int gb_bootrom_get_firmware(struct gb_operation *op)
>>   	struct gb_bootrom_get_firmware_request *firmware_request;
>>   	struct gb_bootrom_get_firmware_response *firmware_response;
>>   	struct device *dev = &op->connection->bundle->dev;
>> -	unsigned int offset, size;
>> +	unsigned int offset = 0, size = 0;
>>   	enum next_request_type next_request;
>>   	int ret = 0;
>
>I think this has come up in the past, and while the code in question is
>overly complicated and confuses static checkers as well as humans, it
>looks correct to me.
>
>Please make sure to verify the output of any tools before posting
>patches based on them.
>
>Johan
I used cppcheck tool .